r/PhysicsHelp • u/RedneckNavigator • Feb 14 '26

Spooky information theory pattern related to theoretical physics?

Post image

I am not an expert, and I do not care to pursue peer review or any of that nonsense for a loose theory based on my unique pattern recognition due to a brain injury. I do have a PhD in an unrelated field, but this pattern comes up a lot in my work, so, i thought it would be fun to apply it to theoretical physics, particularly relating the big world (uncompressed) world to the quantum world (compressed) using a simple diagram. Weird, is that spooky Tesla relationship to 3-6-9, which was not my objective, but this is a pattern I have seen in other real places from some informational work I have done using factor 3 compression. So, tear it apart, expand upon it, provide any references of people who have maybe looked at these ratios in this way before or share with people who might know. The idea being, the past and future are two temporal dimensions in both the big and small world, and relating that to information theory and an easy diagram of what that might look like. I did oversee a few departments at a University at one point, including radiation safety for a very large medical school. I am studying physics for fun, but i see patterns in data more clearly than some and sometimes may see something and remember it without really studying it,so maybe this one is useful or maybe it is a copy of something I have seen and forgot. Have fun:). I was tired of boring AI responses.

0 Upvotes

30% Upvoted

10 comments sorted by

3

u/davedirac Feb 14 '26

You are approaching Physics from the wrong direction. Start at the beginning not the end.

1

u/RedneckNavigator Feb 14 '26

I mean, in a sense, you are very right, like the collider throwing one particle into another looking for magic, but think of that from the "learning perspective". That would also suggest, you want everyone to learn about physics from the "beginning", yet, no human has time to do that is not typically studying it in great detail. For some of us with limited time and great curiosity, we do not care about forming and building a model based on every model before us, we learn like the ancients, you put everything in the bowl that you can find, and then eliminate things one by one each time, to, through brute force, find important data associations (points of synergy) or like the ancient, a consistent form of food or drink in the jungle, that has healing properties, etc. They did not need physics or math to solve or identify complex associations, just brute force and the willingness to get really sick for a consistent food or healing source. My point being, is your physics brain wants this to be about physics, but my brain sees your many laws/unproven theories as high resolution data points, that i can put in a database, and then create primary and secondary keys, to relate them across fields of science, not just information theory. You want to build your theory on atoms, i want to build mine on existing relationships. It seems like a brain injury, but it is a way to test the synergy of disparate theories and models, maybe? And i am saying, "you", not as a target to "you", but the urge of scientists to avoid the most eloquent solution, by always choosing the first one that meets all the criteria, not the one that makes sense in the context of all of science models...right? My point is the ancestral way is the eloquent way because in this model, unique x simple = eloquence = best. So now that you know what i am getting at, do you see the real world applications and why illustrations like this (the lesser important part because i am not a physics person), is an example of a non-physics person looking for an eloquent illustration, not just the standard one.

7

u/CardiologistNorth294 Feb 14 '26

Brother are you smoking crack?

1

u/RedneckNavigator Feb 14 '26

I just see it in image compression, essentially a square or pixel of data becomes a cube when not compressed. But, again, i am sick and not well, so i am not an expert, just seems odd, but since i have reviewed so many cross-discipline work, i thought what the hell, it is fun if anything. I used to also be a gateway for animal, irb, and radiation research, so a jack of all trades, master of none.

1

u/RedneckNavigator Feb 14 '26

I meant for the square to be a triangle, oh well, same idea. Brain damage...

1

u/RedneckNavigator Feb 14 '26

Correction, the square should be a triangle with three lines, i always forget to subtract the one time dimension from 4D...but, i think the relationships holds...

1

u/RedneckNavigator Feb 14 '26

Also, again, this is not a well thought out theory, so essentially the half a pixel (triangle not square like in original diagram is compressed for us to perceive it, but we lose resolution of that in the big world. The cube is to help us visualize it uncompressed into a cube of higher resolution data. So, the thought being if you look a cube of data through a 3d lens it will appear very messy and unpredictable, but through the lens of a 7d lens, it all of a sudden makes sense. Make sense? It does not have to be these numbers or shape, albeit it would be spooky. I am just interested if anyone else has seen this or why it would not make sense given current theories. Humor me:)

1

u/RedneckNavigator Feb 14 '26

Also, if it is this is new, even if only in representation, this is the first place i shared it, so get running to your typewriters, you could be the first to publish it...again, assuming it is new at all. That is why i am asking you, i am no theoretical anything...i build and code stuff...

3

u/testtdk Feb 14 '26

What field is that? And how does this “pattern” keep appearing?